Closed ftyers closed 7 months ago
Questions:
CCONJ
reading for ihuan
is that in intechpa azcame, anozo cuecueya: ihuan in quiquimichtin. we can't just extract azcameh, cuecueyah, quiquimichtin as a series of coordinated NPs.López Austin:
Décimo capítulo, donde se habla del augurio, de lo que se tenía por agüero con relación a las hormigas, o a las ranas y a los ratones.
Updated:
This sentence is very similar in structure to #39, and maybe in principle to those with in ihcuac... too.
re tetzahuitl and motetzahuiaya, this is being discussed in #39
An ugly thing about treating relational nouns as the head and not having a CCONJ reading for ihuan is that in intechpa azcame, anozo cuecueya: ihuan in quiquimichtin. we can't just extract azcameh, cuecueyah, quiquimichtin as a series of coordinated NPs.
I think this is primarily an issue with this specific reln -huan, the meaning of which, when it has a third-person singular possessor, seems to fall variably between "with" and "and" ("along with" in Lockhart's words).
ihuan in this respect presents other issues, e.g. (4.B.3 in Lockhart)
"nictlazohtla in nonamictzin ihuan niquihtoa ca nictlazohtla in nopiltzin"
...where ihuan seems to have a verbal complement (it is worth pointing out that, afaik, -pampa also can take verbal complement, which presumably we would annotate as acl(-pampa, V)
, so we could also account for that this way.
So might we want to distinguish between these two cases, (1) typical reln behavior or (2) conj behavior, even though the boundary between them is fuzzy?
This is a bit like https://github.com/ftyers/UD_Classical_Nahuatl-FloCo/issues/14, but does not have the catca...
Yeah I think that even without catca this analysis makes sense since, as I believe we discussed elsewhere, I think the clausal subject makes more sense for mijtoa than to essentially say that "the portent is said".
regarding in intechpa , since we are treating this as a clause, we probably want to select SCONJ
and mark
So like this?
LGTM